Original subtitles

We're now driving from our main farm...

in the direction of a nearby Natura 2000 area.

In this Natura 2000 area we manage a great many fields.

Our cows graze those fields.

The nitrogen debate revolves around one thing:

That the nature permits we've been granted are supposedly impacting the area.

And thus, well... They're saying our impact is too high...

but in reality we're conserving nature.

That's our main farm. It's not Natura 2000, but farmland.

But if we cross the road...

over there we're in Germany. That's the German border back there.

And over there we have our site that's in the middle of Natura 2000...

that serves as a winter storage room and winter stables for our cattle.

But the worst part for us is that because we own a branch on the edge...

and one in the middle of Natura 2000...

the calculation tool adds up both nitrogen production rates...

which have been calculated on paper only, and are stacked on top of each other.

Therefore odds are we will be considered peak polluters.

nitrogen, food for thought

In my job I tend to encounter the nitrogen problem a lot.

I'm a co-owner of a Rotterdam-based office that works on transitions...

towards a future-proof society, so to speak.

We also work on the future of Dutch rural areas...

where we need to find new ways and collaborations to reshape...

farming, nature, recreation and all other user requirements of our countryside.

If you want to understand this story you must start with Sicco Mansholt.

He was a Dutchman and Minister of Agriculture.

And in the period after the Second World War he said:

'We will never want for food again.'

And during that time Dutch agriculture...

became incredibly professionalised and was scaled up tremendously.

So we became extremely proficient in producing agricultural products...

among which all types of meats that are produced in the Netherlands...

on a massive scale for a world population.

So what we're doing is we're actually importing a lot of food...

animal feed, into the Netherlands.

We convert that into meat very efficiently...

and sell this meat to a world population.

So then you must make a choice.

Do we want to produce on a mass scale for a world population...

and suffer the consequences, which is impoverishment of our environment?

Or don't we want that?

The European policy is clear: we don't want that.

And that's a really painful conclusion.

Especially for agricultural entrepreneurs who for many decades and generations...

have been supported and pushed to keep producing more and more...

and do so efficiently. And many other considerations were added...

like animal welfare as well as environmental aspects.

So you could say that the many kilos of meat the Netherlands produces...

are made in a very animal-friendly way, and highly efficiently.

This means it has a very small environmental footprint...

but it does put a great many animals in a small area.

So you've been pushed to produce as much as you can for generations...

and now all of a sudden they say you're doing it wrong.

That just doesn't sit right with me. It's an outrage.

I agree that we need to change our ways.

So I think we should help those entrepreneurs with that.

It's not about whether the measuring methods are accurate or not.

Many huge mistakes are being made there.

Yet the problem remains, so we need to solve it.

This here contains nitrogen. But this is pure gold.

This isn't dirt, it's gold.

To us much depends on manure.

Manure is important in the natural cycle. Manure can tell you a lot.

This cowpat shows you if an animal is fed enough or too little protein.

When the dung is too runny, when it contains more water...

it contains more nitrogen. In that case we add more crude fibre...

by feeding the cows more herbs.

That's when the animals get more hay with herbs.

So that's how we adjust their feed.

This here determines the quality.

All animals are different...

and sometimes there are circumstances us humans don't know about either.

So in the end we need to inspect the manure.

What's that you're saying? -I couldn't keep that fence shut.

But it's closed now, isn't it? -My son fixed it.

I believe that used to be farmland, too. Or wasn't it?

Just like this. -Yes, quite.

Do you know anything about nitrogen? -No...

It's quite a problem...

See that flag? Over there? -Yes, a farmer. A farmer lives there.

Are you not up-to-date about the nitrogen problems?

No. I just like the flags.

Do you think the farmers are right? -Yes, of course.

Right. -It's just wonderful.

When looking at the reports coming out of the government at the moment...

they say they want to get rid of thousands of farmers.

I've been examining the nitrogen problem for years and often visit measuring sites.

Just to see what the cause might be.

Usually I go on a hike through the area.

Around the corner is a beautiful stream. It's a magnificent area.

But according to measurements this stream contains very high nitrogen levels.

Sometimes the cause is obvious. You can see it right away.

But I've asked someone who lives in this area, in old Wageningen...

and they told me that the farmers have been downsized for years now.

The lion's share of this land used to be farmland.

There was an industrial park, but it's converted back to nature years ago.

But still nitrogen levels are too high.

So that makes me wonder: where does it come from?

See, this is a mix of...

It's one of our experiments. It's a mix of grass and leaves.

And we also use it in public parks, in the plant boxes.

It gives a wonderful organic substance...

and all soil life fares very well on this stuff.

The right bacterial composition...

will result in a fantastic organic cycle.

It retains water better. That's a plus. You get far less dehydration...

and it captures more minerals...

which in turn become available for vegetation, which is ideal.

And this is a product that's given us by nature.

We can only change our environment by changing bacterial cultures in the soil.

At the moment what we often hear...

is that we should skip meat, since cows produce a lot of nitrogen.

But cows mostly eat grass.

And the protein in grass is hard to use for cows.

But now we start eating plant-based foods instead of meat...

which is grown the same way, and contains the same proteins.

So all that does is shift the problem.

That means us humans will produce a lot of emissions ourselves...

as our food contains the same hard-to-digest proteins.

And therefore we have to eat even more to meet our energy needs.

We discovered there's a bacterial culture that works in the direct opposite way.

One that locks in the nitrogen into the soil in body proteins.

And that gives you a completely different cycle.

If we can switch up the bacterial cultures that means the farmers can stay...

because then we can use these farmers to create a different living environment.

That will double the effect, for nature will join in...

changing our living environment as well, and everything stays in the soil.

That way farmers need far less artificial manure, which in turn saves energy.

They need far less pellets, which costs less energy either. It stays in the system.

We can solve the environmental problem with farmers.

What will come of this? I don't have a clue where this will end.

It's not about finding solutions. We need to think in solutions.

And what are we actually talking about? What is our goal?

We've had a lot of meetings with farmer collectives and individual farmers...

and it's... We have a good relationship with farmers.

But of course it's all one-on-one. Together you look for possibilities.

There's much to achieve on a small scale, but it should happen on a large scale too.

We've had the Euro crisis, we have the energy crisis...

the Covid crisis, the Ukraine crisis, the pandemic crisis...

and now we have the nitrogen crisis.

What governments like about crises is that they can push through matters...

people wouldn't accept in a normal world by means of a democratic process.

People in the Netherlands simply cannot reverse this.

A law coming in from Brussels cannot be improved or cancelled...

by the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament...

and it can no longer be corrected or cancelled by the Dutch government.

So we're stuck with it. The people are side-lined, as it were...

once a law from Brussels has been passed.

The so-called nitrogen crisis, and its origin...

lies in the Habitats Directive that came into force here in Brussels in 1992.

But back in 1992 we couldn't foresee the impact on our country by 2023.

In a democracy the people should be able to decide what their country looks like.

Do we want our farmers who belong to our culture, and who feed us?

Or do we want red tape from Brussels that is utterly useless to us?

The actual nitrogen crisis broke out in 2019...

with that court case and verdict of the Council of State.

Years before that Jaap and I were already asking the question:

What is the scientific argument in favour of this nitrogen policy?

If a farmer wants to build new stables he has to use the AERIUS tool.

And when that says that the stables will cause too much nitrogen to descend...

on the neighbouring natural area, you simply won't get a permit.

Then the obvious follow-up question is, and Jaap and I had started on that...

We had this very interesting conversation at RIVM about the AERIUS tool.

But we hadn't yet arrived at the heart of it: How good is this tool really?

Jaap Hanekamp. Originally a chemist.

I work at the university in Utrecht. University College Roosevelt.

Former member of the Advisory Committee on Measuring and Calculating Nitrogen.

Also known as the Hordijk Committee.

The cabinet had given us the task...

to analyse the scientific part of the nitrogen policy.

One of the things I advocated was to show that the nitrogen model...

the AERIUS tool, or so-called OPS, deserved critique on the licensing part.

The idea that such a tool can calculate how much a farm contributes...

to the nitrogen deposition in a nearby natural area.

The Committee has decided that the tool was unsound and not accurate.

It doesn't work that way. You're asking too much of science. Impossible.

You'd expect that when the ministry establishes an Advisory Committee...

validation studies are put on the table.

That's scientific morals. We should be open and transparent.

That didn't happen, so we didn't know those validation studies existed.

They have been revealed according to the WOO, the 'Open Government Act'.

They were put on the table more or less involuntarily.

And that slightly changed the story.

Colleague Brix, an expert in this field, carried out an in-depth research.

And then we found that the tool was even more useless than we thought.

You can't do anything with it.

Let me be very blunt. When you put a primate or a monkey behind a keyboard...

it will be more accurate in predicting numbers than the tool.

This model is completely useless. It can't predict concentrations in the atmosphere.

Or how much nitrogen will come down eventually. OPS can't predict it.

Not even... We're not even sure what it does exactly.

It is so vast that we don't even know how unsure we can be of the tool's results.

We therefore said the tool needs to go.

The sad thing about it is that we've known for a long time OPS is worthless.

It's not recent knowledge. We already knew this fifteen years ago.

Those studies had not been hidden for no reason.

Not even when the Measurements and Calculations Committee was online.

Because the RIVM wasn't exactly proud of what these validation studies said.

Standards have been set, and a tool was built.

So we link those two together into this law.

But we don't know if it has anything to do with reality.

In this case to the detriment of the lives of farmers.

Right now we're in this very weird impasse where everybody looks the other way.

'Just keep calm and carry on.'

In other words: It doesn't matter what you do.

This is the epitome of science denial. Denying scientific knowledge.

Look away and muddle along.

It makes you wonder what's really going on.

Is this about nitrogen? The answer should be: No, it's not about nitrogen.

This is about something else.

Perhaps parliament should start arguing about that.

So what are we talking about? Is it nitrogen or...

is this some cheap power struggle? Loss of face? You name it.

It's not about nitrogen, and definitely not about science.

So at the moment we're in denial, apparently. For whatever reason.

What I see happening right now is that the nitrogen issue has become so political...

and so urgent that it's almost impossible to have a normal conversation.

Especially between farmers and the government.

And let's be honest, the government has made such grave mistakes.

Take for example the AERIUS calculations.

A large part of those seem to be incorrect.

Entrepreneurs have been incredibly worried, fearing for their companies.

The message based on those models was: This is where your business ends.

But after recalibration of the tool this doesn't seem to be the case.

Well, that doesn't build trust.

Even when the government says that 'together we will pull through...

but you, you, and you have to go.' That's no basis for a good conversation.

It's a joy to be a farmer...

but not necessarily in the Netherlands with this government.

With increasingly difficult rules and an inconsistent government...

There's no fun in that. There's no security.

Most famers are running on loans that are up in the millions of euros.

They invest in low-emission floors, and all of a sudden...

the investments no longer apply.

Suddenly you can write off hundreds of thousands of euros paid.

Dutch farmers have no security.

My family, the Schuiling family, has been farming for hundreds of years.

I don't even know which generation I am. At least seventh or eighth.

And I think it was the same before that.

I think the last generation of happy farmers was my granddad's generation.

The fact is that you're being criminalised as a farmer by this government...

even though you contribute to food production for your country and the world.

It's actually one of the most important professions...

yet it's not appreciated. And that's not right.

Moreover, I don't understand the environmental side to how this works.

Dutch farmers produce their products in a very animal and nature-friendly way.

Plus we're incredibly efficient. We're the best in the world.

If we quit, another country will take over.

And they won't work as efficiently and animal-friendly.

Dutch farmers have the lowest environmental impact in the world...

but they are not rewarded for it.

I used to have land in Schipborg, and whenever I came up with my crop sprayer...

I first checked the crops to see how they were doing.

And then the citizens tell you it's not right to spray so often.

I explained to them that I pop by 20 times a year...

but that my granddad did so 10 times a year.

He used to drop ten times 2 kilos per hectare...

so that's 20 kilos of spray in total.

I come twenty times with 200 grams.

That's 4 kilos in total.

'So it's better if you come more often?' I say: 'Now you understand.'

So you explain it to them.

And the next time you see them they wave at you.

In hindsight us farmers should have, and it's not too late...

We should explain to citizens and The Hague what we're doing and why.

I think LTO missed an opportunity there. They should have done better.

Horses don't have to produce anything. Cows eat grass.

And where do we grow grass in the Netherlands? That's another puzzle.

That's when they say: 'Why won't that farmer grow other crops on his land?'

No, he would have done so if he could.

Grasslands only grow on land with a low soil density.

You can put a potato in it, but you won't get it out.

There's nothing you can do with this land than grow grass on it.

Grass is essentially a worthless product, because we can't eat it.

But cows can turn this grass into meat and dairy products.

So it has no value, and you can't do anything else with this land...

but if grass grows there, it captures lots of CO2 which makes us very happy.

So relatively worthless land can produce a high-quality product.

But nowadays that's a no-no, apparently.

Bureaucrats in The Hague and Brussels have come up with a picture...

of what the countryside should look like...

how people in rural areas should live, and how farmers should farm.

But they don't know how it actually works.

It's a skewed situation.

If this policy is implemented, I hope it won't happen and farmers protest...

but if this policy is implemented, we won't have any farmers left in 10 to 20 years.

And in 30 years there's a public poll about why the Netherlands has no farmers.

Why do we depend on other countries for food? That's where we're headed.

And it gets even worse.

Because the Habitats Directive from 1992 was only a guideline.

Member states were allowed to choose how to organise it.

The same goes for all member states, but the Netherlands is very rigorous.

Our values or standards are far more strict...

than for example Germany's or Belgium's.

Now the EU Nature Restoration Law is coming into force.

And this law is not a guideline, but a regulation.

That means Brussels will decide how it's done.

So it's no longer voluntary, and that means we can't do a thing with it.

Because you now have this Habitats Directive, which is about...

the Natura 2000 areas.

Those have been appointed, and nature may not degrade there.

Now the upcoming Restoration Law means...

that nature in all of the Netherlands may not degrade.

Plus that areas are appointed, especially in ecosystems along the water...

where habitats need to grow, which means in terms of biodiversity.

That means no new buildings are forthcoming in the Netherlands.

If that law is passed we're finished.

Then the Netherlands will lockdown. I call it the Netherlands Lockdown Law.

Come on, you guys.

Come. Come here, guys.

Come on, come along.

Current legislation appears to negate what society wanted these past 30 years.

We wanted extensification and animal welfare, and both have been picked up.

We put the two together.

We fitted circular thinking into our companies, in cultivation.

And now it seems, because we happen to be in the wrong place...

working together with nature...

with stables in one location for animals in the middle of a Natura 2000 area...

and this spot on the borders of Natura 2000.

So when you happen to be an entrepreneur who works with nature...

you're now judged on a nitrogen tool...

where, come April, you probably hear that 'We're sorry, but you're not wanted, sir.'

And to me that's a very bitter pill to take, of course.

Should someone who manages and takes care of nature...

now be punished for doing that?

The line of trees across this field is the German border.

I think there's a huge fence around the Netherlands, like a glass wall.

We can see through it, but no wind or nitrogen is blowing this or that way.

Anyone standing on two feet can understand that it's nearly impossible...

that in this area where we are now...

a farmer on the German side, at 100 metres, can do almost anything.

But farmers in the Netherlands 2 to 3 km away is held accountable for nature here.

That's just mind-boggling.

Shouldn't Europe look at something together as a group?

We're a democracy...

and people in the Netherlands should be able to choose their own future.

The majority decides what we're going to do.

But now the committee makes most decisions.

The law is passed, and citizens are being side-lined.

That's not how it should be. This needs to change.

That's why I've said that the new EU Nature Restoration Law...

has to be approved at least every five years by the European Parliament.

That way it won't automatically remain in force forever.

And I would like to appeal to the people who aren't interested in EU elections...

and ask them to vote anyway, because...

between 60 and 80 percent of legislation in our country is decided here.

So go to that ballot box, next year in 2024, and cast your vote.

Our strength is that the horses go outside every day.

And we have a lot of land per horse.

Here we have two horse paddocks.

That's a 20 by 60 paddock, and this is a 42 by 80 one.

Here the customers can ride dressage figures.

In here are our own horses.

It's the storage for straw and machines.

I used to be a cropper, but I sold as much land as I had funds.

At the time we already had horses for customers.

They pay for garage, and I've expanded that part.

Us farmers have to specify everything we do.

What crops we're going to sow or plant.

We have to record everything involving manure.

My dad was an educated farmer as well, so he managed alright.

But he got stressed trying to pull everything together...

because one mistake meant you could start again.

Plus you'd run the risk of getting huge fines.

That's what I remember from the nineties.

Customers can go into the woods back there, riding around...

In the nineties things got harder as well.

So my dad used to have a lot of stress.

But there comes a time when a straw breaks the camel's back, and that's it.

That might trigger something.

And unfortunately there are farmers who give up.

It happened on a Friday. I called home that day...

because I knew he wasn't doing well.

But someone else picked up the phone who told me my dad had passed away.

My first question was: 'Has he had a heart attack?'

Thankfully they immediately told me what had happened.

So I rode my bike through town yelling and cursing all the way...

and I went straight home.

It was horrific. Somehow it pulls the rug from under your feet.

I miss my dad every day.

I wish I could discuss things with him...

and work together with him.

I'm a farmer now, but my dad didn't want me to become a farmer.

He wanted me to have a better future and told me I shouldn't be a farmer.

A few days after my dad had passed away I was out of tears.

And I've never been able to cry since. That's all gone now.

Grief is a tough process, so I reached out for help at one point.

But even then it was still very hard for me.

I simply shut down even though I was open to it.

All I did was work like a dog and keep going.

Sometimes I think to myself... You hear stories about people who...

who decide to end it all.

I might as well find him somewhere...

You know?

And you don't want that.

Sometimes when I'm waiting, when supper is ready...

and then you wait for him.

Then he'll tell me: Let me pop out for a sec, just to check something.

But then I think: Wait, I have supper ready.

So you wait a bit longer, and a bit longer...

until at one point you say to yourself: I'll just check on him.

To see if something bad has happened, or whatever.

But you know? That's...

This is the truck my dad and granddad bought in general partnerships time.

So I will never let it go.

The consequences are simple. It's a destruction of part of society.

That will not be replaced. It breaks down, and nothing will grow back.

Food prices have been a longstanding problem, and they keep rising.

The Netherlands is not the only producer of food, but a very efficient and good one.

In other words, we transfer nitrogen emissions...

that basically form a natural part of agriculture.

Doesn't matter where, you will always lose nitrogen.

Not by design, though it's annoying, but it can't be avoided completely.

And the Netherlands is quite good at avoiding nitrogen emissions.

So you move the food away.

But then you need logistics to get it over here again.

So prices won't get any lower. In fact, they will rise even more.

Plus we're demolishing our landscape, for what will be the alternative?

Larger and better natural parks? Nonsense.

It will probably be housing, or windmill parks instead...

so it's not getting any better.

Instead what we're doing is ruining our agricultural qualities permanently.

I'm sure that's what's going to happen.

Not all of it, but part of it will disappear.

And with it much auxiliary agricultural industry will be lost...

which agriculture needs to exist.

Apparently it's a select group's conscious choice.

It has nothing to do with democracy, it's just another exciting story.

'If we don't act now,' I never know who 'we' is...

'...something will go very wrong.'

We've heard this story too many times before.

It's the typical European, utopian chatter because it can only be replaced...

by misery, problems, poverty, et cetera.

I once called the nitrogen policy a ball pit for politicians.

You can spend a lot of money...

but nobody can measure, calculate or see what you get out of it.

It's simply a spending spree. For nothing.

Ideally you'd carry out a cost-effectiveness analysis...

because I want something for my money.

But it begs the question: How much should it cost?

Can it be 25 billion euros? That doesn't seem right.

The return on investment on a pure nitrogen policy is nil.

Or even negative, because we're chasing thousands of farmers away.

In other words, we get nothing in return. Especially not nature.

At least not the visible, tangible kind that improves before our eyes.

It's just a baseless assumption.

Bureaucrats in The Hague and Brussels have come up with a picture...

of what the countryside should look like...

how people in rural areas should live, and how farmers should farm.

But they don't know how it actually works.

It's a skewed situation.

It's ridiculous, but someone behind a desk came up with this.

This person has thought up a standard that's completely unrealistic.

Take for example my business with our horses.

The government decides a standard for a horse's nitrogen and phosphate emissions.

But what goes into the horse comes out again.

Horses are fed dry and lean hay that hardly contains nitrogen or phosphates.

And a tiny amount of pellets with insig- nificant nitrogen and phosphate levels.

But on paper they emit lots of nitrogen and phosphates.

And that determines the size of the plot of land you need...

whether you have to remove manure, which is expensive.

And it determines the number of animals you can keep. But it doesn't add up.

I'm not afraid to say out loud that the standard should be 75 percent lower...

in case of horses at least, if not less.

But on paper they emit loads of nitrogen and phosphates.

That is not true. It's incorrect. Impossible.

The 1992 Habitats Directive is out of my hands.

But I'm working on the EU Nature Restoration Law, trying to stop it.

I placed 32 amendments here in Brussels.

In first place to reject the EU Nature Restoration Law.

In case that doesn't succeed I placed more amendments...

that every five years this law should be approved by parliament.

So unlike the Habitats Directive we're not stuck in an uncontrollable situation.

I think the EU Nature Restoration Law should come back every five years...

and people should be able to vote in favour or against it.

That way we won't be stuck with a law we're having serious problems with.

I think farmers are by far the most important countryside managers.

So you need them to talk about this countryside.

They manage and maintain the area, so...

you can't do without them. Absolutely not.

Moreover, you can't do without the products they produce.

If we move towards circular agriculture...

we also move towards a different economic model for agriculture.

That means farmers will start to sell their produce more locally again.

And that means the regions will again start to appreciate...

the products agriculture delivers. And that's a model I believe in.

When it comes down to nature conservation policy...

the Netherlands, together with Flanders, has uniquely chosen for nitrogen-only.

That's complete bollocks.

And we have decided, ex cathedra, that everything is nitrogen.

So nature policy is nitrogen policy, and vice versa.

It's complete and utter nonsense. We know it's nonsense, but...

Let me put it this way: It's easy to calculate.

There's a thermostat called OPS.

You have a number of standards called critical load values, and those...

are matched, and that's when people say nature is recovering as nitrogen drops.

The way this policy is presented...

has nothing to do with reality.

However it doesn't mean, for the record...

it doesn't mean that nitrogen has no effect on nature.

Farmers could ask the Minister the question of: When are you...

When will you be satisfied? What is the final goal?

But there is no answer to that question. And politicians love this.

Mrs Van der Wal can tell you this: 'As long as we spend those 25 billion euros...

and we buy out the farmers, thus having reduced the nitrogen emissions...

I will have achieved my final goal.'

But Mrs Van der Wal, what is it you've achieved exactly?

How can I see proof of that in nature?

You say the current situation is very bad. According to you nature isn't doing well.

But once we have spent the 25 billion euros...

what do you think we will have achieved by then? What is the ultimate goal?

In my eyes, and I witness this with climate and also with nitrogen...

politicians love it to have a final goal that can't actually be measured.

But at that point they can say: 'I've pulled up my sleeves...

and have even thrown 25 billion euros at it...

in order to tackle this terrible nitrogen problem.'

The government in all its financing institutions gives direction...

in deciding who can get funding and who doesn't.

It's not a question of names that decides who gets what. It's about...

research directions that are being pushed...

and holding back research directions they don't want.

That way you can steer scientific research in a particular direction.

Before you've spent one penny you can decide...

which direction you want to promote, like nitrogen research, for instance.

'And we don't want to find this in scientific research, so they get nothing.'

Firstly you should note that our country like many other European countries...

suffer greatly, so to speak...

under the utopian monster. This idea that you can construct society...

top-down, at the pleasure of the ones who are in power at that moment in time.

That's called utopian dialectic. It's very simple.

First you present a problem: Nature is going down.

That's the dystopia: drama and misery. The dying forests from the 1970s.

'But we have a solution. We have to get rid of the farmers.'

It's a classic dichotomy that we have known for ages in Europe.

You present a disaster: 'If we don't act now something will go very wrong.'

And the intervention is always compelling, all-encompassing...

profound and thorough, et cetera, et cetera.

That's the utopianism which we've been suffering for ages as a society.

But we still keep going, pushing this ideal forward.

We know the consequences all too well. It's essentially destruction of society.

You demolish it by saying: 'This society is wrong, we need to reconstruct it.'

But that's not how people work at all.

And thank goodness. People are social beings who want to interact with others.

Nobody can tell you what you're doing is wrong and you need to try something else.

But that's what we do, like with the farmers.

Then they start throwing important scientific studies around...

saying: 'If we do it like this the Dutch agriculture will be amazing.'

But that agriculture only exists in your head or your computer, but not in reality.

How do you know it's better?

Then they pull out a circus of studies, but that agriculture still doesn't exist.

The agriculture we have now is the one we have, and it's pretty good.

This is used often. It's system thinking versus relationships among people.

We simply love systems, but at the same time they can crush people.

AERIUS is causing the nitrogen problem here.

The system needs to be maintained, meaning AERIUS, because...

that's more important than the people it crushes. That's what we're doing here.

And apparently our parliament couldn't care less.

I've learned to think differently, from different angles.

And that has taught me to fight back.

To fight back by showing that there are alternatives.

By doing it differently, and by explaining what you're doing.

Explain and show what you're doing.

That way of fighting, of going against the grain always gives me energy.

When someone says it's impossible, I tend to think...

I grew up with the saying: Can't lies in a grave...

and Won't lies next to it.

We're going to try and change this...

and explain to people how this society is doing.

To tell people how we're treating our environment.

We can keep developing. We can innovate. We can move forward.

Just like me and my business switched from intensive...

to extensive farming and animal welfare. It's possible.

But we need to talk about feasible times and conversion periods.

The Minister wants to close down 3,000 farms and 30% less cattle.

About 10 % of arable land...

must be made available for nature, housing, and recreation.

Downsizing farmers has major consequences.

Food prices will rise considerably, and after calamities food shortages loom.

The Dutch parliament is becoming aware that nitrogen put us on the wrong track.

In March Pieter Omtzigt presented a motion.

He wants the AERIUS tool to be tested on reliability.

Until recently adopting such a motion was unthinkable.

But this time there was a majority.